Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Kishkumen]

I will break this down into smaller chunks, since I am in the midst of other tasks:

Well, to the author it appears that he is setting the background for the review by explaining an ongoing conversation. Greg had done a review (published with FAIR) in which he had made certain points about an earlier iteration of Meldrum's material. Now reviewing the current version, he feels that Meldrum has responded to his earlier review in the current version he is now reviewing.

Could you tell me what the marketing of FIRM has to do with this background in which he is responding to comments on Meldrum's earlier work? I don't follow you here.

[Guest]

I think that it is a bit premature to say it isn't about science for Greg. I don't know him but I get the impression from the article that it clearly is very important to him and that it is the driving force behind the paradigms by which he looks at anything, including Meldrum's material. I don't' get the sense that he personally is about the power or that he is being used as Manchurian author to squash a rival faction seeking to overthrow FARMS power and prestige. From the little I've read, Greg has a singular voice. I have a hard time seeing a FARMS voice, in any case.

I have to get back to the other response later. I'll briefly comment on this now: taken in the context of Greg's review of Laura Compton, which had little or no science in it, but much of the same attack on the person, I would say that the continuity between his "reviews" is more indicative of where he is coming. I am not saying that Greg does not take his science seriously; I am saying that the science is not the motivating factor. The motivating factor is protection of the LDS Church from its internal enemies or at least potential internal enemies, as both reviews make abundantly clear.

I haven't read the other piece, so I couldn't comment.

I said nothing about a rival faction trying to squash a rival factions seeking to overthrow FARMS' power and prestige. I think it is odd that you bring that up. Why do you?

Sorry, Kish. A miserable (apparently) attempt at humor. Next time I'll use the winkies.

[_J Green]

I will break this down into smaller chunks, since I am in the midst of other tasks:

Well, to the author it appears that he is setting the background for the review by explaining an ongoing conversation. Greg had done a review (published with FAIR) in which he had made certain points about an earlier iteration of Meldrum's material. Now reviewing the current version, he feels that Meldrum has responded to his earlier review in the current version he is now reviewing.

Could you tell me what the marketing of FIRM has to do with this background in which he is responding to comments on Meldrum's earlier work? I don't follow you here.

Introduction, part C. Greg says that he had made comments about the issue of claiming inspiration in an earlier review (published by FAIR) of another work of Meldrum's. He then points out that in the current work of Meldrum's that he is reviewing now, Meldrum spends some time addressing this very concern, saying essentially that he does not claim inspiration for his business enterprise. So first, the claim that he does not claim inspiration for his business enterprise is an integral part of the very work that Greg is supposed to be reviewing now, and second, it is part of an extended conversation that goes back a few exchanges. Greg's response about marketing is part of section C of the introduction that responds to statements that are part of Meldrum's work he is currently reviewing and that are in themselves possibly responses to Greg's earlier review.

This raises questions for the reviewer. How do you deal with the material you are supposed to review that is part of an extended conversation? Is it completely off topic? Do you continue to respond across reviews as the subject responds in their next publication? Or do you simply ignore it? If you do, will outsiders say that you haven't acknowledged previous context and have ignored current material?

As I said, I think there are a number of ways to deal with it. I think putting it in the introduction allows Greg to be up front about the nature of the disagreement while offering him a chance to respond to an ongoing discussion on this issue.

Does this answer the question?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I will break this down into smaller chunks, since I am in the midst of other tasks:

Well, to the author it appears that he is setting the background for the review by explaining an ongoing conversation. Greg had done a review (published with FAIR) in which he had made certain points about an earlier iteration of Meldrum's material. Now reviewing the current version, he feels that Meldrum has responded to his earlier review in the current version he is now reviewing.

Could you tell me what the marketing of FIRM has to do with this background in which he is responding to comments on Meldrum's earlier work? I don't follow you here.

Section C of the intro, which J Green is talking about, is Smith's attempt to portray Meldrum as someone who's either hypocritical, dishonest, or confused:

Either the disclaimers in Remnant through DNA are not offered in complete sincerity or the author is untroubled by mixed messages.

The "background" here is that Smith wrote a critique of Meldrum's faith-based "certainty" in this FAIRblog posting:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/06/advi ... ze-winner/

In it, he (i.e., Greg Smith) references Richard Feynman, and talks about the need for skepticism, etc. That said, I'm not sure why J Green thinks that the "disclaimers" in Meldrum's book are a direct response to Greg Smith's blog posting:

Well, to the author it appears that he is setting the background for the review by explaining an ongoing conversation. Greg had done a review (published with FAIR) in which he had made certain points about an earlier iteration of Meldrum's material. Now reviewing the current version, he feels that Meldrum has responded to his earlier review in the current version he is now reviewing.

Where is the "ongoing conversation"? Or is it more that J Green and/or Smith assume that there is one going on?

Regardless, that entire section C of the Intro is designed to make Meldrum seem dishonest--Smith is saying, in effect, that you can't trust the gestures towards skepticism in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA because Meldrum has made declarations of faith-based certainty elsewhere.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I followed the thread dedicated to these types of issues in FARMS through the first three or four pages and found the net to be rather widely cast. Many of the issues dealt with quality or accuracy of footnotes or other issues that focused not on the tone of FARMS reviews (which was supposed to be the thesis) but rather the quality of its scholarship. I suspect that if you took your skills to hone the thesis statement and its supporting evidence in that thread you would focus on a small group of cases that could be evaluated. But when the scope of problem shrinks then the overarching motif of a FARMS "tendency" starts to become problematic.

Kind of easy to say when you've only read 3 pages out of a thread that's still a work in progress, eh? Plus, as has been pointed out to you before, you don't have to take our word for it: the same "tendency" has been criticized by people like Richard Bushman and Eugene England. Or you can read that great article on apologetics by John-Charles Duffy which assembled quite a lot of evidence in its own right.

Also not explored to any extent in the portion I read is the idea of variations in reviews on the same work, where one review may be more critical than another. Has an adequate comparative analysis been done on reviews of the same work?

I believe I made at least a passing comment on the fact that, in one of these cases, one of the reviews was better in terms of its tone. (If I recall correctly, the "better" review was written by David P. Wright.)

Can we detect anything from it? What does it mean in terms of a monolithic FARMS voice? Is there one?

Who is saying that there's a "monolithic voice"? You are trying to paste an absolutist claim onto an argument that's more nuanced. There is a difference between noting an overarching tendency versus making an argument about a "monolithic voice."

Can we really speak of tendencies and trends

Yes, since these trends span the entirety of the Review's existence, and there has been a consistency in the editorial point of view.

or are different voices given freedom to articulate their views as they see fit within the realm of their subject matter expertise?

Sort of, but that doesn't mean that trends aren't apparent. You could argue that the talking heads on FOX News are "given freedom to articulate their views as they see fit," but that doesn't mean that one cannot make observations about the general qualities or trends that characterize FOX News.

If the latter, what does this mean in terms of perceptions about relationships to Church Headquarters, etc.?

I'm not sure how or why this is relevant.... I guess it's because Kish said that the apologists are covering the GAs' butts? Per what's been said by Steve Benson, and what was implied by Dallin H. Oaks himself (in reference to advice/tips that he solicited from Jack Welch)?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also: why is the alleged fact that Meldrum was posting with a pseudonym on MAD adduced as support in the endnotes? How is this relevant to the scientific rigor of the book? Answer: it's not. It's there solely to make Meldrum look bad.

[_J Green]

Apropos of nothing in particular, one of my favorite parts of Pride and Prejudice is where Elizabeth is trying to have a conversation with Mr. Wickham on the grounds of their estate in Meryton, in Hertfordshire. The only problem is that her cousin, Mr. Collins, has his eye set on Elizabeth and tries to get in on the tête-à-tête. Mercifully, Jane rescues the situation by telling Mr. Collins that her sister needs him to interpret the morality of some sermons.

Gotta love that Jane!

Cheers everyone.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also apropos of nothing, I wonder which is the more effective or meaningful tactic: to simply tell someone to shut up, or to bury it in a Jane Austen reference?

How about dealing with the evidence?

[_Chap]

Apropos of nothing in particular, one of my favorite parts of Pride and Prejudice is where Elizabeth is trying to have a conversation with Mr. Wickham on the grounds of their estate in Meryton, in Hertfordshire. The only problem is that her cousin, Mr. Collins, has his eye set on Elizabeth and tries to get in on the tête-à-tête. Mercifully, Jane rescues the situation by telling Mr. Collins that her sister needs him to interpret the morality of some sermons.

Gotta love that Jane!

Cheers everyone.

People who want a private conversation should have it via PM.

[_Kishkumen]

I had a nice long reply to J Green written out when my computer freaked out and backspace erased everything I had written, and then proceeded to back through my browsing history. Ugh.

Anyway, I think I can sum what I was going to say fairly succinctly.

J Green, you either feel confident to speak on the topic of what constitutes an academic book review or you do not. Please do not feign lack of qualification, which, when it boils down to it, amounts to little more than an admission that you do not feel comfortable speaking for Daniel Peterson or Greg Smith. It is further irksome when you tell me that you are not an academic, that I am more qualified to speak to these matters than you are, and then proceed to tell me, erroneously I might add, that my criticisms have the scatter-shot approach of an unfocused undergrad essay. If that is how you respond psychologically to the authority you appeared to grant me based on my experience, then we should probably stop this conversation before it really gets out of hand.

Being nasty like Oscar Wilde instead of Andrew Dice Clay only slips under the radar when your reader is too stupid to figure out what is going on. Your little Jane Austen reference to Doctor Scratch was more of the same.

My criticism is very focused. The simple fact is that you don't agree and don't like it. Academic book reviews should not focus on matters of personal spirituality. They should focus on scholarly arguments. Since FARMS review resides on BYU campus, it should hew to academic standards and leave the non-academic assessments of the personal spirituality of Mike Quinn, Laura Compton, Rodney Meldrum, John Dehlin, etc. to a venue that does not adhere to such a standard or have any implied or explicit obligation to do so, like FAIR.

My criticisms on this thread address exactly this issue in three separate reviews that show precisely the same tendency to insert non-academic slams into a purportedly scholarly book review. Perhaps that was fine in the days of "No Ma'am, That's not History," but I think the time for such shenanigans passed when FARMS moved onto BYU campus. Now the stakes are higher and the standards should match them.

And be careful about encouraging me to undertake a more focused and formal critique of LDS apologetics, because you may just get your wish. I am not sure your apologist friends would like that very much. In any case, I will continue to argue this point, because I believe in it passionately. The Church should not support, even indirectly, slams of its members in good standing.